STC
237 STC 16 E
Original: English
NATO Parliamentary Assembly
SUMMARY
of the meeting of the Science and Technology Committee
Grand Ballroom 1
Hilton Istanbul Bomonti Hotel & Conference Center
Istanbul, Turkey
Sunday 20 November 2016
2016
1
237 STC 16 E
ATTENDANCE LIST
Committee ChairpersonBaroness RAMSAY OF CARTVALE (UnitedKingdom)
Acting General RapporteurBruno VITORINO (Portugal)
Special RapporteurOsman Askin BAK(Turkey)
Sub-Committee on Energy
and Environmental Security
RapporteurMaria MARTENS (Netherlands)
President of the NATO PAMichael R. TURNER (United States)
Secretary General of the NATO PADavid HOBBS
Member delegations
BelgiumRoel DESEYN
Alain DESTEXHE
CanadaJoseph A. DAY
Cheryl GALLANT
Matt JENEROUX
Steven MACKINNON
CroatiaMiroslav TUDJMAN
Czech RepublicAntonin SEDA
FranceMichel DESTOT
Gilbert LE BRIS
GermanyUlrich MÄURER
HungaryMarta DEMETER
ItalyDomenico SCILIPOTI ISGRO
LatviaIvans KLEMENTJEVS
LuxembourgNancy ARENDT KEMP
NorwayIngunn FOSS
PolandPrzemyslaw CZARNECKI
Waldemar SLUGOCKI
RomaniaHaralambie VOCHITOIU
SloveniaMatej TONIN
SpainGuillermo MARISCAL
Begona NASARRE
TurkeyMetin BULUT
Ziya PIR
Associate delegations
ArmeniaMikayel MELKUMYAN
Tevan POGHOSYAN
AustriaHubert FUCHS
AzerbaidjanMalahat IBRAHIMGIZI
SerbiaZoran DRAGISIC
Jasmina NIKOLIC
UkraineOlga BELKOVA
Iryna FRIZ
Oleksii SKRYPNYK
Regional Partner and Mediterranean
Associate Member Delegations
AlgeriaMohamed BENTEBA
Miloud FERDI
Parliamentary Guests
BahrainMohamed ALAMMADI
Saudi ArabiaSami Mohammed ZAIDAN
Speakers Ian ANTHONY, Director, European Security Programme, Stockholm International Peace Research Institute
FarukÖZLÜ, Minister of Science, Industry and Technology of the Republic of Turkey
Committee SecretaryCharlotte LITTLEBOY
International Secretariat Henrik BLIDDAL, Director
Anne-Laure BLEUSE, Coordinator
Linda OHMAN, Research Assistant
1
237 STC 16 E
I.Opening remarks by Baroness RAMSAY of CARTVALE (United Kingdom), Chairperson
1.Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale(UK), Chairperson of the Science and Technology Committee (STC) opened the STC meeting at 9:24.
2.In her opening remarks, Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale thanked the Turkish delegation for its hospitality and efforts in preparing the session in Istanbul. She also expressed her concern regarding the situation in Turkey:the country had experienced and continued to experience a national trauma. The chairperson hoped that democratic ideals would not be compromised in the aftermath of the trauma and reminded delegates that the NATO PA delegations were in Istanbul as friends and Allies of Turkey.
3. Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale welcomed the two speakers of the day: FarukÖzlü, the Minister of Science, Industry and Technology of Turkey, and Ian Anthony, Director of the European Security Programme at the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI).
4.Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale brought attention to the publication“Deterring to Defend: NATO After the Warsaw Summit” by Michael R. Turner, President of the NATO PA. The newly publishedreport presented recommendations on the importance of strengthening NATO’s deterrence and defence posture. Updated after the NATO Warsaw Summit, it contained a revised analysis of the threats confronting Allies and recommended responses to overcome current challenges. The report stressed that more needed to be done by NATO if it hoped to change Russia’s strategic calculus.
II.Adoption of the draft Agenda [173 STC 16 E]
5.Baroness Ramsay of Cartvalepresented changes in the draft agenda [173 STC 16 E]. Due to changes in Minister Özlü’sschedule, the order of speakerswas altered.The draft agenda was adopted with changes.
III.Adoption of the Summary of the Meeting of the Science and Technology Committee held in Tirana, Albania, on Sunday 29 May 2016 [124 STC 16 E]
6.The Summary of the Meeting of the Science and Technology Committee held in Tirana, Albania, on Sunday 29 May 2016 [124 STC 16 E]was adoptedwithout changes.
IV.Procedure for amendments to the draft Resolution NATO Airborne Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (ISR) [198 STC 16 E] by Philippe VITEL (France), General Rapporteur and presented by Bruno VITORINO (Portugal), Vice-Chairperson
7.Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale reminded the delegates about the procedure for amending the Committee’s 2016 draft Resolution on NATO Airborne Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance [198 STC 16 E].
V.Presentation by Ian ANTHONY, Director, European Security Programme, Stockholm International Peace ResearchInstitute (SIPRI) on Conventional Arms Control in Europe: Are Conditions Ripe for a Relaunch?
8.Dr Ian Anthony briefly introduced SIPRI and then turned to reflect on recent developments in the field of military security. Dr Anthony recalled an August 2016 article by FrankWalterSteinmeier, Federal Minister for Foreign Affairs of Germany, that called for a revised arms control regime in Europe. The initiative’s main objective was to balance necessary steps to strengthen European deterrence and defence with a renewed focus on détente and efforts to improve political relations in Europe. The article described the current situation as a preparatory phase and called for a structured dialogue, but not yet negotiations. The suggested key elements included identification of regional arms ceilings, minimum distances between the positioning of armed forces as well as transparency measures in sensitive regions such as the Baltics and the Black Sea. Further, the existing arms control regimes would need to be updated to meet the prevailing conditions and take into account the increased mobility and rapid movement of units, the integration of new weapon types and updates on verification techniques. Finally, measures were needed to apply arms control in contested conflict areas. Dr Anthony told the delegates that the article had caused considerable discussion, but also a cautious response. The suggestion on transparency measures, in particularraised concerns among Allies who argued that a regionalisation of arms control would weaken the inclusive character of the arms control treaties of the 1990s. Dr Anthony said that there had been indications from the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) that it would endorse a way forward on conventional arms control at the OSCE December meeting, in particular.
9.Dr Anthony reminded the delegates that Europe was the only region with a legally binding arms convention as well as confidence and security building measures. Efforts to live up to the existing agreements had however not born fruit, and Dr Anthony stressed that while the instruments were not failing, they were also not achieving the intended results. Dr Anthony agreed with the Minister Steinmeier that the objective should be to create a robust platform for dialogue and find measures that prevent escalation and protect civilians. Furthermore, he pointed out that the instruments available in Europe had to be fully applied, and the opportunity should be taken to tailor the instruments from developments in other forumsto a European context, such as international regimes on cluster munition and military equipment transfer.
10.Dr Anthony argued that there were currently no expectations on new legally binding instruments as the current atmosphere was non-conducive for negotiations. In fact, the conditions for strategic stability had corroded in Europe. Dr Anthony said that the momentum for negotiations had often come from the East, and reminded delegates of Gorbachev’s role as a catalyst for the arms control regime of the 1980s and 1990s. Those negotiations were, however, launched in conditions radically different from today’s as Soviet forces had been withdrawn and the Soviet Union’s doctrine had been revised to reflect new principles stating that the Soviet Union was not an initiator of conflict and did not have territorial claims and that stability was based on parity. Thus, they were the very opposite of today’s situation. Despite these obstacles, Dr Anthony welcomed the ongoing discussions and saw potential in the deepening NATO-EU cooperation and a developing common understanding of security problems. He suggested that the issue of balancing détente and deterrence should receive more attention in NATO-EU relations. Further, DrAnthony called for an honest assessment of the European security system. He recalled that the system established with the Soviet Union did not entail a military dimension for cooperation and questioned whether a comprehensive European security system had existed in the first place.
11.To sum up, Dr Anthony welcomed Minister Steinmeier’s article as a much-needed contribution to the debate on a European security agenda. He reiterated his support for the discussion on a new or revised arms control framework as well as the analysis on the changing nature of conflict and the military security environment in Europe. Dr Anthony said that a new European security system with military security as one of its central elements should take into account the changing conditions for European security and go beyond the existing regimes. In this regard, four aspects should be central: threat definition; containment of crises; prevention of conflict escalation; and protection of civilians in conflict areas.
12.During the discussion period, several questions were raised on arms control and deterrence. Dr Anthony argued that there is a tendency to take steps back from the mechanisms of cooperative threat reduction that were instated during the Cold War. Simultaneously, many countries had caught up in technological capabilities and now constituted a threat. Dr Anthony stressed the significance of NATO’s deterrence measures and regretted that the current political conditions are not permissive for new cooperation in areas such as CBRN (Chemical, Biological, Radiological and Nuclear) and cyber. Dr Anthony reiterated that the current situation constituted a preparatory phase for building a future arms control platform.
13.Questions were also raised on European security. Regarding the EU discussion on stricter rules for identifying small arms and light weapons, Dr Anthony explained that the availability of fire arms constituted a threat to European public safety. Not all member states lived up to the regulations currently in place, and the Commission was looking into the possibility of marking weapons with the country of production in order to better trace weapons. Regarding the effect of the US elections on European security and EU security measures, Dr Anthony said that it was too early to assess the consequences. Talking about the outlook for common intelligence and counterintelligence structures on the EU level, Dr Anthony said that chances were low for this to happen as these remained national capacities. Instead, barriers between states should be removed and it was possible that there would be clusters of countries that cooperated closely on these issues in the near term. A delegate raised the question whether there was a need to renew the perception of European security and who the potential adversary could be. Dr Anthony noted that the threat posed by states was de-emphasised in the 1990s, but today traditional approaches to security had re-entered the agenda as the threat picture had become more mixed over the past years. Dr Anthony stated that it was time for an honest discussion in both the transatlantic community and Russia on the situation of European security.
VI.Presentation by FarukÖZLÜ, Minister of Science, Industry and Technology of Turkey, on Turkey’s Defence Research and Development Programmes and its Defence Industry
14.FarukÖzlüunderlined the importance of technology in maintaining security and outlined the interaction between security challenges and technological trends. The Minister said that following the terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001, a paradigm shift in threat perceptiontook place andintroduced a focus on people-centric security. This had posed a challenge to security forces that were equipped and trained for conventional territorial defence. The Minister argued that new technology constituted a potential solution to this security problem as new military technologies had improved precision and surveillance, and emerging technologies hold promises for the future of border security,for example. Minister Özlü recognised that challenges existed related to this trend, such as the increasing role of the private sector as a source of innovation and the proliferation of dual-use technology.
15.Minister Özlü said that Turkey had responded to these trends by improving its domestic defence industry. Effective research and development (R&D) and technology management policies, accompanied with policies favouring domestic defence procurement, had made theTurkish defence industry more dynamic. The Minister told the delegates that the objective of this transition had been to create a competitive defence industry and to guarantee self-sufficiency of the Turkish Armed Forces. Towards this end, R&D roadmaps had been developed to identify the needs of the industry, and consequently cooperation had been established between universities, research centres and the defence industry companies. In addition, Turkey has engaged in international cooperation and had encouraged active participation of the domestic industry in multinational platforms. The Minister argued that, as a result, Turkey had become one of the leading participants of multinational programmes, especially the Airbus A400 and F-35 Joint Strike Fighter programmes.
16.Minister Özlü said that the defence sector investment needed to be seen in the context of national security. The Minister argued that Turkey as a NATO Ally acted as a deterrent power in the region and hence was required to maintain a considerable military capability and technological competence and had therefore invested in domestic technologies. Minister Özlü questioned whether NATO took a sufficient role in current security challenges, and whether technological cooperation within NATO was sufficient. He argued that neither was the case and that the insufficient technological collaboration within NATO had negatively affected the Alliance’s efficient management of current security challenges. The Minister recalled that technology itself cannot guarantee security, but security without the support of technology was impossible. He called upon the Alliance to revise the strategy for sharing technology and invited Allies and friendly countries to participate as Technical Support Provider in the procurement of Turkey’s missile system.
17. During the discussion period, Maria Martens (NL) expressed herdistress over the coup attempt as well as her condolences for the victims andher solidarity with the Turkish people. She also underlined her appreciation of how much Turkey was doing for the refugees on its territory. However, she expressed her concerns overthe events taking place in Turkey after the coup attempt, especially the high number of arrests and dismissals immediately following the coup attempt, including judges, mayors, academics, media people and fellow members of parliament. She hoped that Turkey would take actions in conformity with its commitments to the Council of Europe.CherylGallant (CA) inquired on the specificities of how the arrests following the coup attempt were made, as she had understood that many arrests were based on the downloading and use of a specific cell phone app. The Minister declined to answer her question, as it was a question for law enforcement and intelligence services. Further questions pertained to areas of cooperation within NATO and on insights into the Turkish defence industry. Minister Özlü asked Allies to increase their efforts in the fight against Daesh. The Minister also stated that NATO Allies had to increase technology sharing in order to increase cyber security. Regarding the funding of theAirbus A400 that Turkey is planning to acquire, Minister Özlütold delegates that the national aircraft company TAI was the main shareholder. TAI was co-owned by the state (45%) and the foundation of the Turkish Armed Forces (55%), and involved many domestic, private sector sub-contractors in the project. When asked whether the Turkish government had a programme in place to control procurement and exports, Minister Özlü argued that the process was very transparent. He explained that the procurement agency was a state agency led by senior officials and that the process was open to companies. Delegates also asked about regional conflicts.
VII.Consideration of the draft Report of the Sub-Committee on Technology Trends and Security Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear Terrorism: The Rise of Daesh and Future Challenges [175 STCTTS 16 E] by Maria MARTENS (Netherlands), Rapporteur
18.Maria Martenspresented the draft Report on Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear Terrorism: The Rise of Daesh and Future Challenges and focused on the latest developments as well as updates since the STC’s last meeting. Ms Martens informed the delegates that Daesh continued to use chemical weapons in Iraq and Syria, despite international efforts. Mosul would be a major test, and the Rapporteur voiced concerns that Daesh would use chemical weapons as a last resort. Ms Martens stressed that Allies cannot be complacent.
19.Switching to the longer-term outlook, Ms Martens told the delegates that science and technology could help counter CBRN threats more effectively, but that there was also a risk of abuse by states and terrorists. Since the STC’s last meeting, the section on science and technology had been expanded to include the six areas of chemical and biological trends, nanotechnology, unmanned vehicles, cyber technologies, and additive manufacturing or 3D printing. Ms Martens briefly presented the developments in these areas and the implications for CBRN terrorism.
20.There was no fully-formed government approach to the changing CBRN threat yet nor a clear idea of what a new security paradigm could look like. Ms Martens explained that there were three obstacles to this: First, technology developments increasingly happened in the private sector where authorities had less insight; second, smaller companies and even individuals were challenging big companies as drivers of change; and third, more countries outside the Alliance had been pushing the technological envelope. Ms Martens reminded that terrorists still faced substantial obstacles for CBRN terrorism, but that the risks were real and growing. Therefore, MsMartens called upon parliaments to allocate the necessary resources to counter CBRN terrorism and urged the international community to strengthen the international regime and block terrorists from obtaining CBRN weapons.
21.It was noted that an amendment had been presented prior to the meeting. BaronessRamsayof Cartvale invited Osman AskinBak (TR) to present it. Mr Bak suggested a different wording in paragraph 19 that took note on theOrganisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) statement regarding chemical weapons facilities in Syria. Ms Martens agreed on the amendment.